Lance Armstrong Formally Charged by USADA

If Lance got caught during his race, I'd be all for the penalties. What is happening now, would be like arresting President Obama because he tried coke in college or locking up Clinton for possession when he didn't inhale.

BTW, I'm all for the legalization of drugs and don't think the majority of the people serving time for drugs should be. You also forgot politicians in your list. For examples, the Kennedy family doesn't abuse drugs, it's just that they haven't spent enough time on Martha's Vineyard.

Also, just read thru a couple of the affidavits. Still haven't read that anyone actually saw Lance dope. Even Hincapie "understood" that Lance was doping, but doesn't come out and confirm it.

You are certainly not the only person to do this but the most recent. Nobody is putting Lance in jail, what they are doing is removing a reward that he cheated to get. Thus your analogy is flawed. If on the other hand, it was discovered that Obama had cheated to get his law degree, the university would have every right to strip him of the qualifications he cheated to get.

In short, this is not a criminal matter and there is no danger of Lance's basic rights as a citizen being revoked. What is being revoked are the titles he cheated to get, the rewards he did not earn.

The argument can be made that Armstrong (and Landis, and Hamilton, and pretty much all the rest of US Postal) have committed a massive fraud on the public, to the tune of $REAL_MONEY. Do we let other frauds off the hook just because it's been a few years?

I suspect that if there was cause to prosecute for fraud, this would have come up in the previous justice department investigation. They did not find anything that merited criminal charges but that does not mean they did not find anything that would indicate Lance had cheated to win.

If Lance got caught during his race, I'd be all for the penalties. What is happening now, would be like arresting President Obama because he tried coke in college or locking up Clinton for possession when he didn't inhale.

Only if winning the presidency had the condition that the winner had never taken drugs, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't.

Winning a race, however, comes with the condition that you don't cheat. Lance Armstrong cheated.

Quote:

Also, just read thru a couple of the affidavits. Still haven't read that anyone actually saw Lance dope. Even Hincapie "understood" that Lance was doping, but doesn't come out and confirm it.

There are positive tests on B samples, who gives a fuck about the affidavits?

What people seem to be missing in all the light and noise is the big picture. Carping about hard evidence, or claiming underhanded tactics by the USADA, completely ignores the most heartbreaking thing to fall out of this whole sorry mess.

You now all realise that the victory at the end of Dodgeball is now forever tainted, right? That whole inspirational speech that Vince Vaughn got from Lance? Remember that? Yeah, *now* you do.

If Lance got caught during his race, I'd be all for the penalties. What is happening now, would be like arresting President Obama because he tried coke in college or locking up Clinton for possession when he didn't inhale.

BTW, I'm all for the legalization of drugs and don't think the majority of the people serving time for drugs should be. You also forgot politicians in your list. For examples, the Kennedy family doesn't abuse drugs, it's just that they haven't spent enough time on Martha's Vineyard.

Also, just read thru a couple of the affidavits. Still haven't read that anyone actually saw Lance dope. Even Hincapie "understood" that Lance was doping, but doesn't come out and confirm it.

Or like forcing a college to vacate wins a couple of years after the season is over because they found out that some of their players were cheating.... oh wait they do that.

What people seem to be missing in all the light and noise is the big picture. Carping about hard evidence, or claiming underhanded tactics by the USADA, completely ignores the most heartbreaking thing to fall out of this whole sorry mess.

You now all realise that the victory at the end of Dodgeball is now forever tainted, right? That whole inspirational speech that Vince Vaughn got from Lance? Remember that? Yeah, *now* you do.

Fuck the Tour - that rat bastard ruined Dodgeball.

Nah it just means the deleted never before scene that after saying that Lance looks over to Vince Vaughn and says... "But if you do decide to play in the finals, let me know because I'm sure you'll get your ass kicked unless you take these killer drugs I got that will make your team stronger." can finally be released.

There's talk that USADA may be building a case against Michael Phelps.

So in the absence of failed tests - which are supposedly the currency of USADA's realm - they're cherry-picking a prominent winner to subject an unreasonably enhanced level of scrutiny?

Golly, where have we seen that before? Oh, yeah - in this whole thread.

Just because everyone is geared up does not mean that nobody's being persecuted. There seems to be a takedown mentality at USADA. Don't be too good or too prominent, or look out! USADA's gonna getcha!

Quote:

It's level, but it changes the entire nature of the game. It's no longer about technique, training, or ability...it's about who can design the most effective doping program while still dodging the tests. And that, my friends, is bullshit.

Wrong. If everyone is doping, then it's still about technique, training, or ability.

I highly doubt the USDA sits back and waits for top celeb athletes to fuck up. He is most likely one of many who they are testing and the others are just not newsworthy. I also don't doubt they want to expose the Phelps of the sporting world if they're cheating so the rest of the 'em see and hear about it.

I also doubt all doping is equal. There are the elite dopers with regards to the dope itself, methods of administration, timing etc.

Anything over $1 is too much. The tests were already done and paid for. IIRC, the USADA gets $10 million in Fed Grants. That's $10 million that can be used elsewhere for better purposes.

So the USADA is the villain for spending some of its budget on this investigation - an investigation that now appears to have been completely justified - whereas Armstrong, who regularly lied, covered up and otherwise fought at nearly every turn to have it quashed, is not at all responsible for that expenditure?

---

Norrick wrote:

Quote:

There's talk that USADA may be building a case against Michael Phelps.

So in the absence of failed tests - which are supposedly the currency of USADA's realm - they're cherry-picking a prominent winner to subject an unreasonably enhanced level of scrutiny?

Golly, where have we seen that before? Oh, yeah - in this whole thread.

Christ, not this crap again. Six of Armstrong's samples from the '99 tour tested positive for EPO. With those positive samples and the various things that a significant number of people had been saying about him for years, the USADA had reasonable justification to investigate the matter. The detail and extent of this report now justifies that investigation, imo.

People can cry persecution all they like, but once the allegations turn out to be true those cries become arguments built on sand.

Or like forcing a college to vacate wins a couple of years after the season is over because they found out that some of their players were cheating.... oh wait they do that.

The next season, absolutely. "A couple", once in a blue moon. Thirteen years later? No sport but cycling would even entertain the idea of reaching that far back for mere cheating. You have to literally be a child molester to bring that kind of sanction in college football.

Or like forcing a college to vacate wins a couple of years after the season is over because they found out that some of their players were cheating.... oh wait they do that.

The next season, absolutely. "A couple", once in a blue moon. Thirteen years later? No sport but cycling would even entertain the idea of reaching that far back for mere cheating. You have to literally be a child molester to bring that kind of sanction in college football.

Well when you actively engage in a cover up, and it finally gets blown it seems really silly to say "you can't touch me because it took you so long to get past all of my attempts to cover up what I did!"

Or like forcing a college to vacate wins a couple of years after the season is over because they found out that some of their players were cheating.... oh wait they do that.

The next season, absolutely. "A couple", once in a blue moon. Thirteen years later? No sport but cycling would even entertain the idea of reaching that far back for mere cheating. You have to literally be a child molester to bring that kind of sanction in college football.

I would see your point if the usda just recently found suspicious traces but Armstrong has been under suspicion since 1999 at least afaik.

Or like forcing a college to vacate wins a couple of years after the season is over because they found out that some of their players were cheating.... oh wait they do that.

The next season, absolutely. "A couple", once in a blue moon. Thirteen years later? No sport but cycling would even entertain the idea of reaching that far back for mere cheating. You have to literally be a child molester to bring that kind of sanction in college football.

I would see your point if the usda just recently found suspicious traces but Armstrong has been under suspicion since 1999 at least afaik.

Also, the allegations are not just that Armstrong cheated as an individual, but that he also encouraged or intimidated his teammates into cheating as well. Here are the specific charges from the USADA:

(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.

If it had just been Lance doping up on his own, USADA wouldn't be pursuing it at this late a date. It's the notion that Lance fostered a culture of doping among his teammates, up to and including threatening to fire fellow teammates if they didn't get with the program, that's resulted in this investigation.

Yes, it's almost all eyewitness testimony from acknowledged dopers, but there are a lot of witnesses, and apparently their stories track pretty closely. There are also the suspicious B samples that show evidence of EPO use.

And like I said earlier, this goes beyond simple cheating and into fraud. When you think about how much money has been involved, damn straight it's worth pursuing.

Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme says the race will have no winner if the International Cycling Union goes along with the American officials' ruling to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven titles from 1999 to 2005.

Prudhomme says this week's U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report on Armstrong is "damning" and calls into question "a system and an era."

Looks like the TdF is pretty much convinced Lance Doped.

And the World Anti-Doping Agency seems convinced he's guilty as well...

Quote:

On Thursday, World Anti-Doping Agency director-general David Howman said Armstrong pursued what appears to be a systematic doping program for a decade, "probably with the knowledge" of people who were charged with detecting drug cheats.

Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme says the race will have no winner if the International Cycling Union goes along with the American officials' ruling to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven titles from 1999 to 2005.

Prudhomme says this week's U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report on Armstrong is "damning" and calls into question "a system and an era."

It's the least-terrible of their options at this point (since not trying to rewrite history is apparently off the table thanks to the quasi-laws that govern international cycling). If they move #2 finishers up to #1, they're more than likely just taking one doper's title away to give it to another.

(I keep wanting to call this a "witch hunt" but that implies the people charged are innocent and the crime is imaginary... What's the analogy when they're all guilty, but only one gets prosecuted? "Mafia trial"?)

ICU's response to the charges from the USADA will be interesting. There has long been talk and references that they may have helped Lance avoid some questionable positive results and the like. In fact the head of the WADA practically accuses the ICU of protecting Armstrong.

Quote:

On Thursday, World Anti-Doping Agency director-general David Howman said Armstrong pursued what appears to be a systematic doping program for a decade, "probably with the knowledge" of people who were charged with detecting drug cheats.

So while the ICU's first thought may be to challenge the guilty ruling of the USADA, some think they may not to help keep what shread of authority they have over the entire thing.

Stephenb, he WAS caught during one Tour, but it didn't hold up at the time. Read Tyler Hamilton's book. The dopers outsmarted the testers for YEARS. Wasn't hard to do.

There's also the allegation that Armstrong got at least one positive test to "go away" by making some calls to the ICU. And given how much attention (read: money) Armstrong was bringing to the TdF ("holy crap, cancer survivor beating the odds and coming back to WIN!!!!"), that's really not that hard to believe. Other organizations with a dual mandate to popularize and regulate (such as the FAA) have been accused of erring on the side of the former over the latter.

Hamilton also claims that the federal case against Armstrong was dropped for political reasons, not for lack of evidence. Apparently Novitsky and the other investigators didn't know that the case was being dropped until 15 minutes before Birotte's press conference.

A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance.[67] Emma O' Reilly, Armstrong's masseuse said she heard team officials worrying about Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the Tour. She said: "They were in a panic, saying: 'What are we going to do? What are we going to do?'".[68] According to O'Reilly the solution was to get one of their compliant doctors to issue a pre-dated prescription for a steroid-based ointment to combat saddle sores. O'Reilly said she would have known if Armstrong had saddle sores as she would have administered any treatment for it. O'Reilly said that Armstrong told her: "Now, Emma, you know enough to bring me down." O'Reilly said on other occasions she was asked to dispose of used syringes for Armstrong and pick up strange parcels for the team.[69]

The claim is that the ICU knew details of this, but decided to let it slide. This is one of the things that the head of the WADA was talking about when he mentioned that Armstrong's cheating was done "probably with the knowledge" of people who were charged with detecting drug cheats.

So at this point, as a quick recap.

You have the USADA saying Lance is a Cheat.

You have the WADA saying Lance is a Cheat.

You have the TdF Director saying Lance is a Cheat.

You have 11+ people he used to ride with, worked with him during the TdF, or the like saying Lance is a Cheat.

You have... um.. Lance saying he *isn't* a Cheat.

You have some internet fans of Lance saying... he isn't a cheat, but even if he is a cheat it doesn't matter cause everybody was like doing it.

Is there anyone who has won the TdF who is not a cheat? It seems like doping is simply part of cycling culture.

Not sure, it's most certainly part of the culture but still against the rules. Sort of like PEDs in most sports from the Olympics to Baseball to American Football.

It is sort of Ironic that one of the defenses of Lance is that the USADA is only going after him because he is famous, when it looks like the only reason why the ICU and others turned a blind eye to his doping in the first place was because he was famous.

And the lemming approach of "everyone else is doing it" is just a cop out. IMHO. I've always viewed sports (perhaps naively) as something to celebrate the best that the human body and mind can do in competition. Adding drugs to the mix implies that anyone can compete. Not just the (unaltered) best and the brightest.

Although I believe we are well down the slippery slope of drug-augmented sporting competitions. Now that drugging kids to enhance school performance is gaining a toehold of acceptability, it seems likely that the use of performance enhancing drugs will become routine for everyone in the future.

Is there anyone who has won the TdF who is not a cheat? It seems like doping is simply part of cycling culture.

I don't know why they don't just change the rules and allow doping. Either that or just pack it in and shut the TdF down. It's pretty pointless having a tournament that no one wins.

Allowing doping wouldn't change anything. Like I keep saying, as long as winning matters, people will cheat. If the TdF allowed doping, there would be rules on what and how much, and riders will try to circumvent those rules to gain an advantage.

What's different is that doping was a team effort on US Postal/Discovery; doping's always been an issue, but it's usually the individual riders who make that decision. For US Postal, the charge is that doping was a condition of riding for the team.

Although I believe we are well down the slippery slope of drug-augmented sporting competitions. Now that drugging kids to enhance school performance is gaining a toehold of acceptability, it seems likely that the use of performance enhancing drugs will become routine for everyone in the future.

People who knew A-Rod in High School have claimed that he got ripped over 1 summer to improve his baseball power with the help of PEDs.

Is there anyone who has won the TdF who is not a cheat? It seems like doping is simply part of cycling culture.

I don't know why they don't just change the rules and allow doping. Either that or just pack it in and shut the TdF down. It's pretty pointless having a tournament that no one wins.

Allowing doping wouldn't change anything. Like I keep saying, as long as winning matters, people will cheat. If the TdF allowed doping, there would be rules on what and how much, and riders will try to circumvent those rules to gain an advantage.

What's different is that doping was a team effort on US Postal/Discovery; doping's always been an issue, but it's usually the individual riders who make that decision. For US Postal, the charge is that doping was a condition of riding for the team.

Yup, if you make doping legal people will try to figure out ways to put motors in their bike to gain an advantage. I mean if all that matters is coming in first there are cases in races ((I believe somebody told the story about one of the earlier TdF's)) where somebody didn't actually ride a bike the entire time. They stopped part way through then either had a friend drive them, or got on a train or something. Hey, that should be allowed as well... but only if enough people decide to cheat that way.

Although I believe we are well down the slippery slope of drug-augmented sporting competitions. Now that drugging kids to enhance school performance is gaining a toehold of acceptability, it seems likely that the use of performance enhancing drugs will become routine for everyone in the future.

People who knew A-Rod in High School have claimed that he got ripped over 1 summer to improve his baseball power with the help of PEDs.

I'm skeptical of "people who knew him say...", assertions to begin with, even more so when it's people talking about school from way back. Sure, it could be 100% true. But likewise it might simply be someone misremembering a time when he went away for the summer, already pretty bulky, and came after the summer "ripped", which is entirely possible at that age without the need for PEDs.

Although I believe we are well down the slippery slope of drug-augmented sporting competitions. Now that drugging kids to enhance school performance is gaining a toehold of acceptability, it seems likely that the use of performance enhancing drugs will become routine for everyone in the future.

People who knew A-Rod in High School have claimed that he got ripped over 1 summer to improve his baseball power with the help of PEDs.

I'm skeptical of "people who knew him say...", assertions to begin with, even more so when it's people talking about school from way back. Sure, it could be 100% true. But likewise it might simply be someone misremembering a time when he went away for the summer, already pretty bulky, and came after the summer "ripped", which is entirely possible at that age without the need for PEDs.

Sure. However, when you find out that he later tested positive for roids, it becomes much more believable.

Although I believe we are well down the slippery slope of drug-augmented sporting competitions. Now that drugging kids to enhance school performance is gaining a toehold of acceptability, it seems likely that the use of performance enhancing drugs will become routine for everyone in the future.

People who knew A-Rod in High School have claimed that he got ripped over 1 summer to improve his baseball power with the help of PEDs.

When Dr. Michael Anderson hears about his low-income patients struggling in elementary school, he usually gives them a taste of some powerful medicine: Adderall.

The pills boost focus and impulse control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although A.D.H.D is the diagnosis Dr. Anderson makes, he calls the disorder “made up” and “an excuse” to prescribe the pills to treat what he considers the children’s true ill — poor academic performance in inadequate schools.

“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

This particular instance, I think, underscores a mindset that we're slowly moving toward. That drugging is desirable. There may be some solid basis for giving kids drugs without a diagnosis for which the drug is intended (I know black box studies are done with consenting adults). But the mindset that it's acceptable combined with, basically, experimenting on kids, just makes me kind of sick. I understand how/why the parents are rationalizing doing it. But I disagree with it.

If Lance got caught during his race, I'd be all for the penalties. What is happening now, would be like arresting President Obama because he tried coke in college or locking up Clinton for possession when he didn't inhale.

BTW, I'm all for the legalization of drugs and don't think the majority of the people serving time for drugs should be. You also forgot politicians in your list. For examples, the Kennedy family doesn't abuse drugs, it's just that they haven't spent enough time on Martha's Vineyard.

Also, just read thru a couple of the affidavits. Still haven't read that anyone actually saw Lance dope. Even Hincapie "understood" that Lance was doping, but doesn't come out and confirm it.

You are certainly not the only person to do this but the most recent. Nobody is putting Lance in jail, what they are doing is removing a reward that he cheated to get. Thus your analogy is flawed. If on the other hand, it was discovered that Obama had cheated to get his law degree, the university would have every right to strip him of the qualifications he cheated to get.

In short, this is not a criminal matter and there is no danger of Lance's basic rights as a citizen being revoked. What is being revoked are the titles he cheated to get, the rewards he did not earn.

More than one NCAA football coach has lost their job when it was revealed they lied on their resume. Lance isn't unique, he isn't a martyr.

I've always viewed sports (perhaps naively) as something to celebrate the best that the human body and mind can do in competition. Adding drugs to the mix implies that anyone can compete. Not just the (unaltered) best and the brightest.

I've always viewed sports (perhaps naively) as something to celebrate the best that the human body and mind can do in competition. Adding drugs to the mix implies that anyone can compete. Not just the (unaltered) best and the brightest.

Think of it as socialism for sports. Everyone can now be a winner!

Doping will give you a competitive edge among your non-doping peers, but it won't make you an elite athlete all by itself. No amount of doping is going to allow people like me (even when I was young and healthy) to compete at the same level as people like Lance Armstrong, who was already a monster cyclist as a teenager. You still have to have natural talent, you still have to train your ass off, you still have to build up strength and endurance and mental discipline to compete at the elite level of any sport.

And remember, we're talking about professional athletes here; their paychecks are tied to how much they win or lose. You do what you need to do in order to win, or you find another line of work.

I've always viewed sports (perhaps naively) as something to celebrate the best that the human body and mind can do in competition. Adding drugs to the mix implies that anyone can compete. Not just the (unaltered) best and the brightest.

Think of it as socialism for sports. Everyone can now be a winner!

Doping will give you a competitive edge among your non-doping peers, but it won't make you an elite athlete all by itself. No amount of doping is going to allow people like me (even when I was young and healthy) to compete at the same level as people like Lance Armstrong, who was already a monster cyclist as a teenager. You still have to have natural talent, you still have to train your ass off, you still have to build up strength and endurance and mental discipline to compete at the elite level of any sport.

And remember, we're talking about professional athletes here; their paychecks are tied to how much they win or lose. You do what you need to do in order to win, or you find another line of work.

At one point, if there ever was a time an athlete couldn't dope, the better athletes won most of the time. Its still the same today but now they are separated by ability AND doping. Things really haven't changed much except the record books.

Yeah, I know couples who instead of bothering to actually teach their kids right from wrong, just decided that drugging ((Doctors order!)) would be easier.

I wanted to yell at them.. "Your kid doesn't have ADHD, you are just a crappy parent." But, why bother? It's not going to fix them or their progressively more broken kid.

ADHD has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing right from wrong so I'm unsure what that has to do with anything. Then again, what makes you qualified to diagnose ADHD or a lack thereof. While I agree there is a predilection among some folks to medicate quickly, that's not always the case. Heck, most of the time when I see anyone really pushing meds it's a teacher who also is unqualified to diagnose. There are a myriad of other things which can, and often do, go along with ADD/ADHD in kids as well as a host of other things which can present similarly. Now, I don't know the situation of which you speak but I do know that my own 8yo stepson is literally unmanageable without medication and even with it can barely sit still and focus. We went through every other option before meds but his is a severe case.

Again, it's entirely possible you're correct in a particular case but most doctors prescribing medication for kids do it for a reason. It isn't as though they care one way or the other, typically, how the kid behaves at home.

Yeah, I know couples who instead of bothering to actually teach their kids right from wrong, just decided that drugging ((Doctors order!)) would be easier.

I wanted to yell at them.. "Your kid doesn't have ADHD, you are just a crappy parent." But, why bother? It's not going to fix them or their progressively more broken kid.

ADHD has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing right from wrong so I'm unsure what that has to do with anything. Then again, what makes you qualified to diagnose ADHD or a lack thereof. While I agree there is a predilection among some folks to medicate quickly, that's not always the case. Heck, most of the time when I see anyone really pushing meds it's a teacher who also is unqualified to diagnose. There are a myriad of other things which can, and often do, go along with ADD/ADHD in kids as well as a host of other things which can present similarly. Now, I don't know the situation of which you speak but I do know that my own 8yo stepson is literally unmanageable without medication and even with it can barely sit still and focus. We went through every other option before meds but his is a severe case.

Again, it's entirely possible you're correct in a particular case but most doctors prescribing medication for kids do it for a reason. It isn't as though they care one way or the other, typically, how the kid behaves at home.

The kid in question was never taught by their parents that hitting people when they came over was wrong. "He he.. that's just something little Jimmy does, we're sure he will grow out of it." They are just crappy parents, everybody who's friends of theirs knows it. Nobody wants to let them watch their kids or have them and their kids over to group play dates because their kid is mean and has no problem hitting other kids. The kid isn't ADHD, one of my friends works with kids who have that, he's just not been taught right from wrong and instead of bothering to teach him they doped the hell out of him.. which is going to end up making him worse in the long run because *nobody* wants to have their kids around him so he's not getting socialized. That said the kid is actually pretty smart, he just has no boundries because his parents won't teach him.

Drugs were their first, last and only method of dealing with their child. It's borderline criminal.

Christ, not this crap again. Six of Armstrong's samples from the '99 tour tested positive for EPO. With those positive samples and the various things that a significant number of people had been saying about him for years, the USADA had reasonable justification to investigate the matter. The detail and extent of this report now justifies that investigation, imo.

People can cry persecution all they like, but once the allegations turn out to be true those cries become arguments built on sand.

- Multiple examples of Armstrong using drugs, including the blood-boosting hormone EPO, citing the "clear finding" of EPO in six blood samples from the 1999 Tour de France that were retested. The International Cycling Union (UCI) concluded those samples were mishandled and couldn't be used to prove anything. In bringing up the samples, USADA said it considers them corroborating evidence that isn't even necessary given the testimony of its witnesses.

So I guess USDA believes people are people, and not ghosts, even before they have formaly introduced themselves.

---

I btw. think an easy way to dope yourself without anyone seeing you, because your teammates etc aren't looking to hard, is just to keep the bloodpackets in the fridge at the hotel so you can administer them yourself. The problem usually comes when the border police catch the courier with the fresh supplies (as has happened).